Over at The Guardian, Richard Grayson, a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate and former director of policy for the party, argues that the Council of Europe ruling against the UK ban on prisoners voting offers the Lib Dems a chance to seize the initiative. Here’s an excerpt:

While Liberal Democrats have consistently made it clear that they understand the need to punish crimes (despite the way the party has been characterised as “soft on crime” by both Labour and the Conservatives), the party is generally most interested in stopping crime in the first place. One way to do that is to transform prisons from being colleges of crime, to places that turn out people who can take up an honest place in society. …

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives will take up this case. So it falls to the Liberal Democrats to be different, in line with their principles. If being in government is to mean anything, and if the Liberal Democrats really do mean today’s politics to be “new”, then they have to behave in a new way when confronted by the scaremongering of some tabloids. They must also be prepared to confront the Conservatives when necessary. Continuing to take potentially unpopular but right and practical positions on crime will be one measure of how far they have been successful.

41 Comments

a) it has to happen because the law demands it
b) it is going to go down like a lead balloon in the tabloid press
c) the Conservatives won’t want to touch it with a barge pole
d) ergo, the Liberal Democrats must be prepared to be the Conservatives sin eaters on this issue
e) ergo, the Liberal Democrats should demand something really juicy quid pro quo
f) perhaps Vince Cable gets to manage the sale of the part nationalised banks to the British public, “popular capitalism” as the Prime Minister called it. Just a suggestion.

We continue to break the law?
Or we scrap the HRA and the ECHR?
We forget all about that stuff about the independence of the judiciary?
Or only when they tell us stuff we don’t like to hear?

No, sorry, doesn’t sound like a Lib Dem stance, that one.

The fact that Labour has studiously avoided dealing with this, and are, no doubt, chortling at how clever they have been to leave an unexploded bomb behind (another one) for the coalition to deal with, is no reason whatsoever to abandon our principles, otherwise we might as well not bother, we should just scrap the party and join Labour and the Tories.

I suggest we let the Tories deal with it. It certainly has to be dealt with, but the Lib Dems have absolutely nothing to gain by sticking their necks out and playing goody-two-shoes on this one. No doubt the Tories will deal with it by ignoring it and trying to delay the case reaching and passing through the ECHR for as long as possible, just as every other European government does when the CoE rules against them. And you know what? I can live with that. The only people who will object are a hand full of convicted criminals. Boo hoo.

Quite frankly if the HRA and ECHR are forcing such moronic rulings down our throats then maybe it is time we scrapped them.

If you believe that the government of the day has the right to take someone’s vote away [for eg refusing to have an ID Card] then you may be a Liberal, but perhaps not Democratic. We must accept that not all laws are just, and not all opnions upon which laws are based should determine your right to voice your opinion in the ballot box.

Protecting citizens, constitutionally, from any future government is no bad thing.

And you must know that comparing this to “hating little old ladies and kittens” is a facecious argument.

I don’t see how extending voting rights to prisoners makes one iota of difference to their rehabilitation. The idea that a minor change in the electoral system can help tackle crime is a brilliant example of the nonsensical reasoning we, as a party, have largely now left behind. The only principle it would establish is the principle that (some) Liberal Democrats are obsessed by abstract ideology incomprehensible to an ordinary voter.

If we could address illiteracy, innumeracy, or drug addiction in the prison population that might reduce re-offending.

Addressing iliteracy, numeracy, drug addiction, etc., must of course be the basis of any sensible program of prisoner rehabilitation. But, tell me this, who is saying that the issue of enfranchising the prison population concerns rehabilitation? Surely the basic issue is why should a convict lose the franchise? On what grounds? What does a prisoner choosing his or her MP have to do with their eventual rehabilitation? Surely the loss of the franchise is dangerous, because it means that there is less reason for an MP to consider helping a prisoner, whilst prisoners must be amongst the most vulnerable people in society?

Look, I know that this will sounds ridiculous to so many people, let’s not pretend otherwise. Nevertheless it is the right thing to do. Just do it, get it out of the way quickly. The civil service must have already drafted the basic framework for doing this, the politicians really need to get out the way on this one. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but as long as you do enough to get the CoE of our backs for 5 years, it’s enough. Politically the imperative must be to get it out of the way as quickly as possible, don’t let it hang around and mess up the next general election. No Tory minister will want to go near this, so it will have to be a Lib Dem. The Tories will have to take the heat for loads of things the Lib Dem won’t want to touch either, so that’s alright. If two parties in coalition can’r run rings around the press, then they don’t deserve to be in politics, keep swapping the blame around and the press will never know who to blame for what.

Well I think Richard Grayson is saying that enfranchising prisoners can help with rehabilitating them.

The moral question of why prisoners should lose the right to vote during their incarceration isn’t a particularly thorny one for me. The grounds for doing so are the same grounds as why they’re inside in the first place. If we can’t trust someone to walk the streets we can’t trust them to decide who runs the country.

“The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, the Government are considering afresh the best way forward on the issue of prisoner voting rights” (Hansard, 9 June 2010).

Nick Clegg has described Hirst v UK(No2) as being a legal minefield. However, Elkan Abrahamson (solicitor) who represents the Association of Prisoners, has stated that the case itself is not a legal minefield. The case itself is quite simple. Anyone attempting to deviate from the narrow confines of the judgment will wander into the legal minefield. Therefore, why is the government blundering off the straight and narrow? It is contended that that approach is not the best way forward. It is not metal detectors which are needed here but instead mental detectors. I laid the path, it may seem crazy paving to some lawyers and politicians and the media. I also laid the mines either side of the path. Now the government has got as far as it has, there is no going back because the path behind has been dug up and turned into a legal minefield. Moreover, it is strongly advised not to mark time on the same spot. It is in everybody’s interests not to delay any further the best way forward.

In my view, Tom McNally made an error of judgement in accusing the European Court of Human Rights of moving the goal posts set in Hirst v UK(No2) in the 8 April 2010 judgment of Frodl v Austria. Had this come from Labour it would be dismissed as spin. The truth is that Lord Falconer misled the public, the media and Parliament as to what my case states. (I say my case because I asked the Council of Europe whether I owned the case bearing my name, and the reply confirmed I have ownership). When Labour appealed my case from the Chamber to the Grand Chamber, it was alleged that the Chamber had deviated from previous ECtHR case law. The Grand Chamber firmly rejected this line of argument. The Court may well treat with contempt the suggestion made by Tom.

Because the UK appeared to be having difficulty interpreting my case properly, the Court took the opportunity (agreed at the Interlaken Conference 17-19 February) in Frodl to provide further guidance on the judgment in my case. The Court stated that it was re-affirming the Hirst test. If the Court moved the goal posts then the Court did no more than move them back to their original position before Lord Falconer unlawfully moved them. Bear in mind that the UK is playing away, and that the rules and referee are not UK controlled. The Court stated that the Hirst test goes to Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. If the government’s proposals for the best way forward fail to take into account these three non-negotiable elements then they will not pass the Hirst test come September. If the LibCons coalition is labouring under the belief that they can turn up at the Committee of Ministers meeting with some woolly thinking plan which lacks concrete substance, and get away with it, then they are sadly mistaken. In effect, the UK is on a 3 month probationary period.

Tom gives the members of the House of Lords too much credit when it comes to experience and expertise on my case. And blinds himself to the glaringly obvious. The foremost expert on the case is yours truly. Today, I have spoken to Tom’s wife, Tom’s PA, and finally Tom himself. Basically, he said that he promised he would get back to me.

Yesterday Richard Grayson writing on CIF stated that the Committee of Ministers had chucked a hand grenade between where the Conservatives and LibDems stand. The author’s profile states that he is head of politics at Goldsmiths, University of London. Perhaps, he can teach me the subject of prison politics? The Court and Committee of Ministers are reactive, on the other hand I am pro-active. Given that I am the man behind creating this fine mess for the UK, wouldn’t the best way forward include talking to me and seeking my advice? Just asking…

P.S. I have met the new deputy leader, Simon Hughes, previously and will be more than happy to take the white flag so that we can get this issue sorted once and for all.

Sorry, but this is one of the very few policies where I have a fundamental difference with the party as a whole.

To me, the right to exercise one’s franchise is probably the absolute key freedom in a democratic society. However, with this privilege must come responsibility, and that means abiding by the law. We would all accept that deprivation of one’s liberty is the key penal deterrent which we have in this country, and if you accept that one of the key freedoms is the right to vote, then there must be the right to withdraw it.

One thing which I’ve not heard about is – where do you draw the line? If prisoners have the right to vote, do we then have to look at the other groups excluded from part or all of our democratic process? Should we allow bankrupts to stand for parliament, for example?

It’s the law. Like the man, Jailhouselawyer, said, the judges have ruled and ruled clearly.

Should we all hand ourselves in at the nearest police station and demand to be disenfranchised?

Let’s just get this one out of the way and get on with more important stuff, it’s not like there isn’t a huge agenda for this government to get through, nor a mountain of problems to sort out.

I think there are people who just don’t get the HRA at all. The point is, if it isn’t causing bloody screams of outrage at the Daily Mail from time to time, then it’s simply not worth the paper it’s written on. And the one thing we shouldn’t be doing, after the lesson of the last 13 years, is governing by triangulating the Daily Mail. That policy was a disaster.

I can see the arguments from both sides, and I do also think that the Government shouldn’t waste time or effort on this given everything else it has to deal with. I also think that there are probably more important human rights violations in the UK which the ECHR should be concentrating its fire on (the continued detention of children of asylum seekers in Yarls Wood, for one.) But I do agree (to a point) with Iain M, in that we shouldn’t do anything about it until it reaches a point where we’re forced to.

There are many, many things which the HRA and the ECHR get fundamentally right, and, overall, the benefits generally outweigh where it gets things wrong. This, for me, is one of the latter.

There is no need for the Lib Dems to “get it out of the way” though Paul, because there are no consequences to the Lib Dems if they do nothing. It’s not holding anything up. It might be worth the fight if there were either electoral or moral advantage to taking this one on, but there isn’t. There is no great principle at stake here, just a dry legal argument based on a bad law. And if the UK government is breaking that law then that’s Cameron’s problem, not ours. Let him take the flak for dealing with it or not.

I’m open to discussion about low-end offenders maintaining the franchise (and have no objection to high-end ones receiving it again on release), but the whole point of gaol is to impress on the perpetrators that they have abused society.

Fair enough. Could that be a policy? Something like prisoners in the last parliamentary term of their sentence can vote in the constituency into which they will be released? Something like that? I’m not a lawyer, haven’t a clue whether that would meet the needs of the Strasbourg ruling, but just trying to gauge what you think acceptable…

Which judges? Not ones whose selection process this country’s electorate have a say in. Instead, they hailed from such havens of human rights and stable democracy as Bulgaria and Spain and Italy.

Not sure whether to take your rant seriously. Have you ever voted for a judge or a magistrate? Are you slagging of Bulgaria, Spain and Italy? Why? Surely even if there were problems with their treatment of human rights it is still our duty to uphold those selfsame human rights?

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry of all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every person – these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it”.

there is no great principle at stake here, just a dry legal argument based on a bad law.

I disagree. There must be a better reason for disenfranchisement than a pensioner refusing to pay the water rates, or making a protest about the Iraq war and retaining that part of their income tax, or whatever, and going to prison as a consequence. A blanket ban on prisoner enfranchisement seems disproportional to many offences for which imprisonment may result. What about prisoners on remand?

Look don’t get me wrong. When Alan Johnson, ostensibly a decent bloke, gets all tough on crime, I understand exactly why. It harms the poorer parts of society disproportionately and he is just sticking up for the great sway of his ordinary and very decent constituents. I get that. Crime needs to be deterred and prison is part of that deterrence. However, I really don’t get what disenfranchisement has to do with this at all. Most prisoners, I would imagine don’t vote and aren’t interested in voting. They don’t see the consequences of their actions on wider society, otherwise they wouldn’t have done whatever it was that they did. Surely it makes some sort of sense to encourage those that, nevertheless, do want to vote to do so, as it shows some sort of interest beyond the solopsistic and egotistical?

Fair enough. Could that be a policy? Something like prisoners in the last parliamentary term of their sentence can vote in the constituency into which they will be released? Something like that? I’m not a lawyer, haven’t a clue whether that would meet the needs of the Strasbourg ruling, but just trying to gauge what you think acceptable…

Or not vote until they’re released. Considering it non-negotiable that serving prisoners maintain the franchise makes as much sense as arguing there should be no incarceration at all.

D’you think the Sex Offenders Register should be disbanded?

Have you ever voted for a judge or a magistrate?

No, but I have voted for members of a legislature which is involved with their selection.

Are you slagging of Bulgaria, Spain and Italy? Why?

Stop right there! I was discussing only the ethos of their legal professions!

Surely even if there were problems with their treatment of human rights it is still our duty to uphold those selfsame human rights?

Once again, why d’you think serving prisoners should maintain the franchise? The onus is on you to provide an argument for this which doesn’t simply appeal to the authority of law. Jurisprudence is peddling in the shallows of philosophy.

All of what you have just written is polemic and of no argumentative value. Good copy but little else.

The reasons that prisoners should retain the franchise are manifold, but I will start with two:
a) it maintains a strong link between the prisoner and his or her MP, which for someone in as potentially vulnerable a position as a prisoner is important
b) it helps reinforce the idea for prisoner that society consists of more than they themselves, and their actions impact on others, voting being an affirmation of the values of society

I would like to turn the question around and ask you two things
a) unless they have interfered in the democratic process, what is the justification for removing the franchise from a prisoner?
b) should even prisoners on remand, presumed innocent, be denied the franchise, too?

I disagree. There must be a better reason for disenfranchisement than a pensioner refusing to pay the water rates, or making a protest about the Iraq war and retaining that part of their income tax, or whatever, and going to prison as a consequence. A blanket ban on prisoner enfranchisement seems disproportional to many offences for which imprisonment may result. What about prisoners on remand?

That’s fair (cf. my one about low/high-end offenders). Non-payment of such rates will be for various reasons; although the so-called Peace Tax dissenters have, imo, shown a different brand of contempt for society (and I’ve said this to the face of one of them, a still-friend of mine).

Penal reform is an noble cause, and it has improved immeasurably over the years. There are still points which could be bettered, but prisoners have a warm roof over their heads and food on the table [1]. Human rights lawyers were once a rare breed, who acted pro bono for victims of state excess, but now it’s become an industry for mediocre individuals who couldn’t cut it on civvie street, so to speak.

The grounds for doing so are the same grounds as why they’re inside in the first place. If we can’t trust someone to walk the streets we can’t trust them to decide who runs the country.

It does not follow one bit. Do they lose the right to life. The right to receive a fair trial. The right to privacy except insofar as it is necessary for the management of their incarceration. Nor do they lose the right to a representative. And so they should not lose the right to assist in the selection of that representative.

While we have man made mala prohibita legislation that puts people in prison for all sorts of things that may not have victims for example, people will always need representation in the courts of parliament that create such arbitrary law.

Yes it is. You, on the other hand, have offered mainly questions and appeals to authority. I am making definite statements, and arguing my case.

a) it maintains a strong link between the prisoner and his or her MP, which for someone in as potentially vulnerable a position as a prisoner is important

MPs may represent children and non-voters (either foreign nationals, or citizens registered to vote in another constituency). They also represent people who voted for other candidates.

This is a non-starter.

b) it helps reinforce the idea for prisoner that society consists of more than they themselves, and their actions impact on others, voting being an affirmation of the values of society/

There are myriad ways of involving oneself in society, such as voluntary work, and prisoners already have access to medical treatment or pastroal care or (at times) day-release and freedom from death/torture. The principle of voting is an important one (but the practice (of marking a piece of paper every five years) is minor.

voting being an affirmation of the values of society/

Which they – the high-end ones, at least – have snubbed with their actions. That’s why they’re there.

I would like to turn the question around and ask you two things

Answering questions with questions is bad argument, but I’ll oblige:

a) unless they have interfered in the democratic process, what is the justification for removing the franchise from a prisoner?

I’ve made my case.

b) should even prisoners on remand, presumed innocent, be denied the franchise, too?

Incidentally, I also think that in a small scale democracy, children and “foreigners” should be allowed to vote just as soon as they can demonstrate to their community the maturity to know what they are doing and that it is a disgrace and also a potential “human rights” issue that they are arbitrarily excluded till a “magic age” or are asked to contribute in any way to the “public purse”.

??????? You don’t know which areas I was referring to, and why the offenders [who, for instance, pulled knives on me and stabbed one of my neighbours; or brained my sister with a brick] did what they did.

Have you lived in such an area or been a victim? This is a fairly straightforward question, and you appear to be arguing in bad faith by refusing to answer it.

I don’t need to answer it. It is fallacious to infer that if I have not been a victim my opinion on whether “prison” is right or not is somehow deficient. My point is that we have a prison based retributive system and that approach does not appear, almost by definition, to be preventing or deterring crime in “high crime” areas.

In my blog post on the subject, moreover, I do not deny the possibility of a secure system for holding people out of contact with those they may harm, the alternative to which would be self-exile. My contention is simply that a need for such a mechanism is not sufficient justification for a monopoly of violence known as a state to enforce it alongside all the other bad things such a coercive monopoly leads to. But perhaps you didn’t read that far.

I don’t need to answer it. It is fallacious to infer that if I have not been a victim my opinion on whether “prison” is right or not is somehow deficient.

No, it would indicate if you have any appreciation of the feelings of *victims* of crime. Unlike convicted criminals, they are not responsible for their misfortune (and are represented by the Prosecution, as well as mad Scottish barristers and Freema Ageyman).

It would also indicate if you have thought through the results of abolishing prison in the classical sense (I think you’ve said as such, correct me if I’m wrong) if you were liable to actually live alongside them.

What about abolishing the Sex Offenders Register?

In my blog post on the subject, moreover, I do not deny the possibility of a secure system for holding people out of contact with those they may harm, the alternative to which would be self-exile. My contention is simply that a need for such a mechanism is not sufficient justification for a monopoly of violence known as a state to enforce it alongside all the other bad things such a coercive monopoly leads to. But perhaps you didn’t read that far.

I did, and it sounds like an undergraduate criminology essay. As it stands, your only claim in this argument appears to be your status as a crypto-anarchist in the LibDem Party (again, correct me if you haven’t said this). It is, in the original sense of the word, decadent as it exists only in a world of ideas free from the negative effects of your decisions.

My point is that we have a prison based retributive system and that approach does not appear, almost by definition, to be preventing or deterring crime in “high crime” areas.

The people who did what I described didn’t do so because they were failed by society. They did so because they were terrible people. This has nothing to do with working class or urban-poor areas – most of the inhabitants of which are good people – but with a handful of terrible people committing repeated offences themselves.

Now, strangely, my efforts to post a complement are being swallowed by the webpage, so here goes again:

In my view the debate on the franchise entitlements of prisoners, including `lifers’ like `The Yorkshire Ripper’, is peripheral to the central core issue that is to do with the 100,000 prisoners being held in severely overcrowded Dickensian UK prisons with the highest `recidivism’/ re-offending rate in the EU..

I ask is the new Home Secretary determined to raise the bar for the enfranchised families of long term prisoners who visit their relatives each weekend, inside prisons and provide them with a progressive plan for their re-education and rehabitation programme, whilst serving their sentences?

The epoch breaking L/D inspired and led Civil liberties agenda that is now encompassing into a new Freedom Bill should also contain a set of doable new entitlements for prisoners and their families, especially on behalf of the the children of long term inmates.

In my view the debate on the franchise entitlements of prisoners, including `lifers’ like `The Yorkshire Ripper’, is peripheral to the central core issue that is to do with the 100,000 prisoners being held in severely overcrowded Dickensian UK prisons with the highest `recidivism’/ re-offending rate in the EU.

Yes, that’s a good point, Patrick. Granting prisoners the franchise is a ‘feel good’ move which requires little further thought. Re-establishing the social bond which arguably was severed when they committed their crimes requires intensive and prolonged effort.

But, hey, let’s allow them to put a cross on a piece of paper every few years. Then we can go back to feeling how good we are.

[me]I don’t need to answer it. It is fallacious to infer that if I have not been a victim my opinion on whether “prison” is right or not is somehow deficient.

[you] No, it would indicate if you have any appreciation of the feelings of *victims* of crime. Unlike convicted criminals, they are not responsible for their misfortune (and are represented by the Prosecution, as well as mad Scottish barristers and Freema Ageyman).

When the entire system proposed by “private law society” is predicated on the idea that “justice” is the making whole again of the victim, I don’t see how you can suggest otherwise. We care about the criminal only in so far as “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that gratuitous brutality only increases the levels of aggression in society.

It would also indicate if you have thought through the results of abolishing prison in the classical sense (I think you’ve said as such, correct me if I’m wrong) if you were liable to actually live alongside them.

What on earth is “prison in the classical sense”? A place to throw people and forget about them when their death sentence has been commuted? Retributive punishment? I would certainly argue that there are better ways to achieve restorative justice, rehabilitation and to demonstrate that crime doesn’t pay than incarceration as a default option. But as an anarchist I do also believe that the market would answer a need if there was one for some form of incarceration for the safety of others for example.

But face it, the current system does not restore the victim in any real sense. Indeed it makes thenm pay, along with everyone else, for the upkeep of their assailant in idleness while incarcerated. There is very little incentive for the state to get it right about re-offending when someone is released, whereas in a private law society the insurer who is responsible for the perpetrator while they are paying their debt would very much be liable if they decided that it was appropriate for them to have complete freedom abnd just to collect some of their earnings from them if they then re-offend.

I am sure you would have a hard time dealing with someone who had harmed you living in your midst if they were simply let off “scot free” but that is not what restitution is about, is it.

At the very least, under such a private law system, you as victim would either be being paid restitution for your injuries while the person was living in the community or would have been paid such before they are released back into that community.

What about abolishing the Sex Offenders Register?

Of course I would, as a central statre register, in the absence of a state to compile and maintain it. However in an insurance based system, especially with modern communications technology allowing, say, very quick economic ostracism of someone who “goes bad” such risk factors would be taken into account when an offender’s insurance provider decided whether to insure them in certain locations or occupations. The state based systen does not have such economic incentives. Someone may get fired (unlikely) but basically an apology is all you’ll get if the parole board or whatever gets it wrong.

I did, and it sounds like an undergraduate criminology essay.

Ouch! Still most of my undergraduates would take rather more than an hour I suspect, so maybe it is the faintest of praise. But it is all pretty standard stuff along the lines of prominent and learned anarchist political-economists and legists.

As it stands, your only claim in this argument appears to be your status as a crypto-anarchist in the LibDem Party (again, correct me if you haven’t said this). It is, in the original sense of the word, decadent as it exists only in a world of ideas free from the negative effects of your decisions.

The only difference between state and anarchy is the victory of the idea that a monopoly of violence is the best way to run things. We anarchists demur. There is nothing the state does that is good that a. the freed market in its truest sense cannot do better and b. is not outweighed by the bads that the state inevitably produces.

[me] My point is that we have a prison based retributive system and that approach does not appear, almost by definition, to be preventing or deterring crime in “high crime” areas.

[you]The people who did what I described didn’t do so because they were failed by society. They did so because they were terrible people. This has nothing to do with working class or urban-poor areas – most of the inhabitants of which are good people – but with a handful of terrible people committing repeated offences themselves.

I did not say anything of the kind. Nor do I think it that people are criminal because the system or society or poverty or whatever has failed them. I said reliance on prison as a system does not seem to have had much of an effect on crime in “high crime” areas, which is what you asked about. It’s not working very well, your preferred system, is it? Not delivering justice, in the sense of making the victim whole, making the victim pay for their assailant’s idleness, little incentive to get it right about deciding whether someone needs to be locked up or can be released nor sanction when it gets that decision wrong, and all the time escalating the level of briutality and aggression in society instead of deliberately trying to reduce it. And yet you still support it. Perhaps it is in fact better thatm not being a victim, I can be more dispassionate about considering the pros and cons of different mechanisms.

For all the “people of the book” and many other historical legal codes, the cardinal virtue is one of forgiveness, yet we live in a society which has made more of vengeance and retribution than restitution, justice and forgiveness. We have a terrible historical legacy in criminology in this country. As the nineteenth century death penalty abolitionists said there has not been a place or time more brutal than Britain with over 200 capital offences at its height. No wonder we think justice is somehow about revenge.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic
and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here.
Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to
show this. You must be registered for our forum and can
then login on this public site
with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.